Note : Dr CM will be wasting his time dealing with DR LTG. This chap is not
interested with relating what is real and telling the truth. He is interested
in painting the worst possible picture of the BN government - another case of bodohpolitik. Notice he did not
even acknowledge the fact that Dr CM gives evidence about postal votes. Dr CM
is interested in showing both the good and bad of a particular situation –
be it BN or PR. Dr CM is interested in telling the truth.
Dr. LTG, on the other hand, is interested in twisting and turning
information to piece together concocted half-truths to win an argument
- typical of a person without conscience. Take where he said that Dr CM “has been at pains to show that he has been consistent
over the past decades in his stance on the major issues facing the country” –
he fails to point out that it is a person like himself who has been trying to
say Dr CM is not consistent. But when Dr CM explains and corrects him, he
suggests that Dr CM is the one trying hard to prove his position - LOL!
I have produced a collection of Dr CM’s writings from
the 70s to 2007 – you can see for yourselves if he is consistent or not. I am
willing to do the same for Dr LTG. Let us collect his writings since the time
he was working for MCA to date. Let us see if he is consistent. If he is not,
than perhaps if MCA offers him a handsome contract today, he may just be pro BN
again :)
Anas Zubedy
Dr Lim Teck Ghee’s reply to Dr Chandra Muzaffar’s invitation by CPI asia
I thank Chandra for responding to my commentary on his lambasting of Bersih 3.0.
Although the Center for Policy Initiatives (CPI) is reproducing his
response in full, there is really very little new in the engagement.
Basically Chandra has rehashed his arguments on the far-reaching
changes to human rights and political and civil liberties that he sees
taking place in the country.
In his initial article he was very emphatic on these changes maintaining that
“[I]t is an irrefutable fact that through these legislative reforms
[Peaceful Assembly Act, ISA repeal, etc] the space and scope for the
expression and articulation of human rights has been expanded and
enhanced as never before.”
Disappearance of “Irrefutable Fact”
I had challenged this argument and pointed out that these reforms
need implementation and confirmation from the ground to ascertain what
has been gained and whether they are substantive in the context of a
regime which has an extraordinary capacity for employing dirty tricks in
order to remain in power, including manipulating the electoral process.
I had proposed that should Chandra, after conducting rigorous social
science research – publish the results confirming this “irrefutable
fact”, it may perhaps help convince sceptics that there have been
“far-reaching changes to political and civil liberties”.
Although he has not yet conducted the necessary research, it is good
to note that the term “irrefutable fact” has now disappeared in his
latest opinion piece. Perhaps Chandra now realizes that his initial
depiction was not only inappropriate but also indefensible.
Meaningful political change
Chandra now terms the political changes as “meaningful” and has
invited me to debate with him on the subject “Are the political changes
that are taking place in Malaysia today significant?”
His new suggestion touches on an important topic and I welcome it.
My own position is that it is premature to read too much in the changes
to date. There are many examples from history of authoritarian regimes
taking one step forward and two backwards, and engaging in foot
dragging, sabotage and even more extreme forms of resistance in response
to democratization pressures.
Our own history has taught us to be cautious in being over-optimistic
with the current reforms. The Prime Minister (see my article: Peaceful transition of power: Open letter to all political parties),
senior Umno leaders, and other extremist nationalists have served
notice – sometimes subtly; on other occasions more openly – that all
means may be used to prevent the peaceful transition of power. The
possibility of these political reforms being tactical and a ruse aimed
at buying time is entirely plausible.
Many other political analysts and ordinary citizens have also been
sceptical that these changes that Chandra has written about are
sufficiently deep and game-changing. Questions have been asked if they
have fundamentally altered the authoritarian system imposed by the
Barisan Nasional and if they reflect changes in the anti-democratic
character of some of the BN’s leadership. It is here that Chandra and I
differ profoundly but unlike him, I do not think it is an issue that can
be resolved over the debating table.
I must also put it on record that even if the opposition were to come
to power during the next elections, pressure would have to continue to
be exercised on the new government to build a more robust parliamentary
democracy.
In the Spirit of Merdeka declaration of 2007
which was endorsed by a large number of civil society organizations,
there was a call for the establishment of a strong democracy in which
the separation of power of the executive, legislative and judiciary is
maintained, and checks and balances preventing the monopoly or abuse of
power by the executive branch are in place.
The declaration also called for the enhancement of human rights and
basic freedoms that are based upon values of participation,
accountability, transparency, equality and diversity. Six major areas of
reform were identified.
If we compare the reforms undertaken recently with the full list
identified in the declaration, it can be seen that we have a long
journey ahead in the struggle for human rights and democracy. In
particular, areas such as the establishment of political and
administrative neutrality in key institutions such as the judiciary, the
civil service, police, Election Commission, the Attorney General’s
office; and ensuring independence in a host of other institutions and
processes in the society, and not just the electoral process, are still
lagging.
No comments:
Post a Comment